Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Observing evolution and design

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
1) Organisms have been observed to evolve in real time by acquiring new beneficial traits. This is undeniable evidence for evolution taking place within the scale that has been observed. Nothing less, nothing more. This is legitimete science so far. .............................................................,.............,,.,......................... 2. However, ToE proponents use these instances of observable evolution to sell the larger, unobserved and unobservable claims of ToE. They are unobservable because of the immense time spans required for evolution to produce complexities such as, say, nervous systems or sexual reproduction. ............................,...................................................................... 3) I have raised these issues on other forums. The usual answer I get is that complex instances of evolution that take millions of years work on the same principle as instances of observable evolution in real time. So, if a ''principle'' can be scaled up apply to bigger ideas, then my response would be that the pinciple that cellphones need a pre-existing engineer/designer to exist.... can also be scaled up to apply to the engineer himself and the universe, in which he lives. I.e - there had to be a master designer for it all to exist. .................................................................................... 4) If ToE proponents can accept a million year long evolutionary process that (a) nobody observed and (b)is impossible to observe again.... then it is AS equally valid for an ID proponent to hold by deduction that life was designed by an unobservable Intelligent Designer.
edit on 27-10-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


So there's this whole thing, where one side is saying there's an "intelligent designer", and another side is saying the process was "not intelligent", and its all a waste of time.

You have to decide where you stand axiomatically, and see what follows. So let's take as our axiom that this whole machine runs on its own, and doesn't need an intelligent hand reaching in from on high. What does that mean? It means that these processes, like evolution AND INTELLIGENCE are the unfolding of the same old natural laws in different circumstances. Learning, then, is as natural as physics laws like entropy, just as systems approach entropy, your mind approaches wisdom. "Intelligence" as it were is just as another aspect of the laws of the universe unfolding in their orderly way.

So was the "designer" "intelligent"? Yes, because intelligence itself is just another aspect of the unfolding laws of physics. The laws of evolution unfolded along the lines which physical systems in your brain unfold, so the whole thing can be seen as a giant "intelligence", with a mind like us, but only because our own minds are simply smaller reflections of these greater physical laws unfolding.

Or you can take as your axiom that the designer was intelligent, and you seek to connect with it in some personal way.

Either way, your dealing with the truth at deep levels, things that depend on your personal axioms and can't be easily argue either way. The way forward is in pure, disciplined thought.

PEace!



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


You can easily argue, and people do, that observable evolution is simply an adaptation effect and not actual evolution of the species.

This throws that whole theory out the _

If you put a bunch of fish in a pool of dark water they may eventually change by losing their eyesight. Is this evolution or adaptation?

To see, we would need to compare them to the others in their species to see if they have changed also. If they haven't, then its not evolution.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


A problem here is the use of "ToE"; Theory of Evolution.
It's a misunderstanding of how things actually work, as well as terminology used in Science.

The misunderstanding is that the term "Theory", is a soft word. It isn't.
"Theory", in Science, isn't used like "Hey, I have a 'theory' about how my favorite sport team can win this year".

No.

"Theory", in Science is akin to a hard fact.
We're talking hard fact, like THEORY of GRAVITY.
Thus, if you want to argue "Theory" of Evolution, a quick answer could be arrived at by defeating "Theory" of Gravity; simply step off any sufficiently elevated place as often as takes to arrive at the conclusion that you're not going to defeat the "Theory" of Gravity ... or, until you actually do.

It's quite simple.




posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Evolution, in it's literal terms and implications,
is one of the few, and possibly the only, innate aspects of the universe.
It's results are emergent events and material arrangements.
At times producing new un-manifested "emergent concept"
which may contain catalytic potentiality for material manifestation.

Everything has evolved from the first event,
which was preceded by the singular potential for evolution on a cosmic scale.

The laws that scientists discover most certainly exist prior to there discovery.
Once codified as law, the laws give the appearance of great intelligence, at least to the scientist.

For a singular un manifested concept, to spawn an evolving cause and effect catalysis, is much more impressive "engineering" than popularly described religious conjectures of the creator/creation.

No magic here folks, just the emergence of the possible through the innate.

oops, too far down the rabbit hole, and it starts sounding very odd indeed...
edit on 27-10-2013 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
So you like to preach your views on evolution on every and any forums?

Cant just let people have their own opinions, so you proselytise your T of E everywhere.
You need to get a life and let others live theirs.
Gravity is observable, evolution, not so much. Macro and micro evolution is not something many creationists would debate, nor evolutionists.

Anyway believe what you want, I think it is dilusional



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 




I think I love you.

Uhh.. if you're a lady...

Or else those pesky religious folk will stick a pitch fork in me!!!




posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Missing Link
edit on 27-10-2013 by Blowback because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
This topic really confuses me...

Wait, if you historically watch p0rn, can't you tell we ARE evolving? From hairy apps in 70s to... let's not go there of today. But in 90s and later you can tell there has been some creationism involved...


I believe that apart from regular slow(ness) evolution, there are times where species is is forced to adopt/change a bit faster, for example in case of dramatic climate change. For example, we are destroying ozon and we (as well all other life on earth) might experience a bit more radiation. Those able to adopt to new level will survive...
edit on 28-10-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


You need evidence for an unobservable intelligent designer. Even with your cell phone analogy, we may not "see" who built the cell phone but we know cell phones are designed and are not natural, therefore an intelligent agent was involved.
In contrast when we observe the Universe/ Nature, all the way down to atoms, we see, predict and measure evidence for natural processes happening spontainiasly without the need for magic or some unknown intelligent force.

So tentitively, we can say with confidence that it suggests there is nothing else but natural proscesses.
Unobservable or not you still need to explain what that designer did, then how did he do it.
He could very well be a guy who likes to make universes and leaves the rest to the laws of physics and evolution, but that would just be speculating.
You still need objective evidence of a designer. Otherwise it's nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

Furthermore, your belief that an essential part of the ToE involves an increase in complexity or information, is wrong. It shows that you have no real actual understanding of ToE, and what you believe about it comes from creationist or cdesign proponentist sources.

Complexity is irrelevant to evolution.
Sometimes more complexity makes an organism more likely to successfully reproduce, sometimes less complexity makes an organism more likely to reproduce.

It is reproduction that is the sole criteria for determining a organism's success!
Complexity is neither necessary or sufficient. Complexity, by itself, does not change the likelihood of success.... It's a non factor.

So, if you want to discuss ToE, you really need to change your focus to something that actually relates to ToE.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Here is my post on topic 'Is God and Evolution mutually exclusive' and IMHO it is very relevant to this discusssion... (basically the same question, no?)




AbleEndangered
Funny thing about it all....

Darwin or the Origin of species is like God's word or "their" belief system!!

No disrespect to anyone's beliefs...

Just another misconception. Please read this before making statements like that again:


Misconception: “Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.”

Response: Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences *


*Source - evolution.berkeley.edu...

** Example for evolution in a lab - evolution.berkeley.edu...


I find following very interesting and ahead of its time... Please read this as well, it might be of interest to you:


Pope John Paul II revisited the question of evolution in a 1996 a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Unlike Pius XII, John Paul is broadly read, and embraces science and reason. He won the respect of many scientists in 1993, when in April 1993 he formally acquitted Galileo, 360 years after his indictment, of heretical support for Copernicus’s heliocentrism. The pontiff began his statement with the hope that “we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.” Evolution, he said, is “an essential subject which deeply interests the Church.” He recognized that science and Scripture sometimes have “apparent contradictions,” but said that when this is the case, a “solution” must be found because “truth cannot contradict truth.” The Pope pointed to the Church’s coming to terms with Galileo’s discoveries concerning the nature of the solar system as an example of how science might inspire the Church to seek a new and “correct interpretation of the inspired word.”

When the pope came to the subject of the scientific merits of evolution, it soon became clear how much things had changed in the nearly fifty years since the Vatican last addressed the issue. John Paul said:

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.” ***

*** Source - law2.umkc.edu...
**** MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: ON EVOLUTION - Pope John Paul II


Pope John Paul II acknowledged evolution and was well aware that something has to be done, as there can't be 2 truths - how he puts it. I am prone believer if Pope Francis gets to this, there will be no question that one truth might get revisioned and left to be known as 'spiritual truth'.
edit on 30-10-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

1) Organisms have been observed to evolve in real time by acquiring new beneficial traits. This is undeniable evidence for evolution taking place within the scale that has been observed. Nothing less, nothing more. This is legitimete science so far. .............................................................,.............,,.,......................... 2. However, ToE proponents use these instances of observable evolution to sell the larger, unobserved and unobservable claims of ToE. They are unobservable because of the immense time spans required for evolution to produce complexities such as, say, nervous systems or sexual reproduction.


Please explain how your alternative theories are any more concretely based or observable. If you don't have a better and more easily proven/demonstrated theory, then why try to kick evolution to the curb? As far as I'm aware, it's still the best working theory we have to date, scientifically speaking. If I'm wrong, please show me how.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



Organisms have been observed to evolve in real time by acquiring new beneficial traits

No organism has ever been observed to evolve.


ToE proponents use these instances of observable evolution to sell the larger, unobserved and unobservable claims of ToE.

The principal evidence for evolution by natural selection does not come from examples of evolution in action.


The usual answer I get is that complex instances of evolution that take millions of years work on the same principle as instances of observable evolution in real time.

That's the wrong answer. What you incorrectly call 'complex instances of evolution' are simply the cumulative results of many individual evolutionary events.


If a ''principle'' can be scaled up apply to bigger ideas, then... the pinciple that cellphones need a pre-existing engineer/designer to exist.... can also be scaled up to apply to the engineer himself and the universe...

That cellular phones need a designer is an observation, not a principle. Possibly it is an observation that illustrates a principle, but what is the principle?


If ToE proponents can accept a million year long evolutionary process that (a) nobody observed and (b)is impossible to observe again.... then it is AS equally valid for an ID proponent to hold by deduction that life was designed by an unobservable Intelligent Designer.

The two scenarios are not equivalent or even comparable, so the fact that one is valid does not validate the other.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Organisms have been observed to evolve in real time by acquiring new beneficial traits.

When you're first sentence in your OP is factually incorrect, you may need to rework your thesis. No organism has ever been observed to "evolve in real time by acquiring new beneficial traits". Organisms don't evolve, populations evolve.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



Organisms have been observed to evolve in real time by acquiring new beneficial traits

No organism has ever been observed to evolve

I'm sure some have, bacterial resistance to antibiotics would be one example. Surely it's been observed in fish and flies too.
edit on 31-10-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-10-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-10-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by helldiver
 


See rnaa's post just after my earlier one.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


If I may play devils advocate here...


flyingfish
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


You need evidence for an unobservable intelligent designer.

* What would you deem as worthy evidence of a designing agent which has not actually been observed?
* What are the criteria that determine something to be designed in your opinion?
* Is it simply just "to know" that there was a designer; or couldn't we also look at the "end product", make observations, then determine, based on specific criteria, that the object was designed?


Even with your cell phone analogy, we may not "see" who built the cell phone but we know cell phones are designed and are not natural, therefore an intelligent agent was involved.

* How do we know something was designed if we haven't actually observed it being designed (or the designer)?

A design starts within the mind (whatever that is), or perhaps from an innate behavior (whatever that is). Apart from drawing it out on a computer or a piece of paper, could you explain how we are to observe something being designed?

I also have a problem with the definition of nature, or what we deem to be natural. We've essentially removed humans from the natural world. It's us, and everything else. Why is that? When did humans cease to be natural, or a part of nature? And why should anything we produce cease to be natural? Is the brain not natural? Are ideas, or thoughts, or emotions, not natural? Nor the physical objects that are derived from them?

Termites build these. Complete with air ventilation tubes, temperature control, burial chambers, and food storage. They organize themselves into social castes each with their own responsibilities. It's natural.

From the same stuff, and for similar purposes, humans build these. And these. However those structures are no longer natural. They are now artificial.

Talk about human chauvinism


In contrast when we observe the Universe/ Nature, all the way down to atoms, we see, predict and measure evidence for natural processes happening spontainiasly without the need for magic or some unknown intelligent force.


Right, everything other than humans that is. Since we're the ones observing then we must be separate from the natural process, right?

I could argue that a cell phone is in fact a natural object, AND that it's also pretty magical. Actually, this entire Universe is magic when you think about it, but I digress. Our ignorance here is driven by semantics. The only reason why a cell phone is not natural is because of the very definition that we made up.


You still need objective evidence of a designer. Otherwise it's nothing more than an argument from incredulity.


How would you explain the objective evidence of a designer, by scientific standards, for this abacus?



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Really what everyone is looking for in evolution is one species changing into another species... or a new species being created. A small change in an organism doesn't change it's species.

To date, we haven't observed that. Ever. And personally I doubt we ever will although it would be amazing.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I guess I don't get an answer. My questions must have been awfully good.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 





* What would you deem as worthy evidence of a designing agent which has not actually been observed? * What are the criteria that determine something to be designed in your opinion? * Is it simply just "to know" that there was a designer; or couldn't we also look at the "end product", make observations, then determine, based on specific criteria, that the object was designed?

Is it designed, is it ordered, fashioned, executed, or construct according to a plan, does it have too much specified complexity to have appeared by known laws of chemistry and physics?

But! the appearance of design should also be differentiated from actual design.
Our brains pick up on patterns and intentions, sometimes when they aren't even there. Seeing unicorns in clouds, faces on mars, or baby jeebus on toast for example. All these things are the result of chance and our minds tendency to recognize patterns. This is the case of appearance of design, as opposed to actual design.




* How do we know something was designed if we haven't actually observed it being designed (or the designer)?

See above.




A design starts within the mind (whatever that is), or perhaps from an innate behavior (whatever that is). Apart from drawing it out on a computer or a piece of paper, could you explain how we are to observe something being designed?

By watching it's construction. You could visit the factory were the cell phones are made.




I also have a problem with the definition of nature, or what we deem to be natural. We've essentially removed humans from the natural world. It's us, and everything else. Why is that? When did humans cease to be natural, or a part of nature? And why should anything we produce cease to be natural? Is the brain not natural? Are ideas, or thoughts, or emotions, not natural? Nor the physical objects that are derived from them?

I smell what you're cooking, natural and artificial can be brain fu#ked to be a bit self-contradictory seeing how nature, itself, created humans and their capability to transform the objects and the matter of their surroundings. Therefore one could say everything that humans create or produce is within the potential of nature. But do we really need the semantics?
Sometimes it's just easier to cut the chase, get to the point, and define things in a way we can all understand.




Right, everything other than humans that is. Since we're the ones observing then we must be separate from the natural process, right?

Wrong.



I could argue that a cell phone is in fact a natural object, AND that it's also pretty magical. Actually, this entire Universe is magic when you think about it, but I digress. Our ignorance here is driven by semantics. The only reason why a cell phone is not natural is because of the very definition that we made up.

Say what?... Sure, a cell phone is magic...If your from the 16th century.

Did you say semantics?



How would you explain the objective evidence of a designer, by scientific standards, for this abacus?

See above.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join